VI INTRODUCTION. 



had to make certain payments, and bring forward strict proof that 

 he had attained his full age of twenty-one years. Amongst the 

 Inquisitiones post mortem are still to be found some few of these 

 Inquisitions known as proofs of age, prohatio etatis — usually very 

 interesting documents on account of the evidence of the witnesses 

 who were examined in order to show how they knew that the heir 

 had attained his majority. Amongst the Inquisitiones post mortem 

 are also some taken virtute officii, others ad quod damnum, besides 

 those dealing with the property of lunatics and idiots. 



The proceedings which followed upon the death of a tenant 

 in chief were as follows : a writ styled the writ of diem clausit 

 extremum, which was a mediaeval synomym for obiit, was issued 

 out of the Court of Chancery ; this was directed usually to the 

 escheator or feodary of the county in which the deceased was 

 presumed to have possessed lands. It commanded him to hold 

 an inquest and to summon a jury for the purpose of an inquiry 

 which was directed to the following points : — 



1. Of what lands the deceased died possessed. 



2. Of whom and by what services the same were held. 



3. The date of his death. 



4. The name and age of the heir-at-law. 



Following the directions contained in the writ the escheator or 

 feodary summoned a jury, who in accordance with the evidence 

 placed before them gave their verdict upon oath ; the return was 

 engrossed upon parchment, and in due course delivered into 

 the Court of Chancery and there filed. During the enquiry the 

 dealings that the deceased had had with his property came under 

 review, and this necessitated inquiry into family settlements and 

 trusts affecting them, and consequently we often find such docu- 

 ments, including wills, are recited very fully, thus affording 

 information of the highest value to the genealogist. 



The ofiicials in the Chancery in due course forwarded a copy 

 of the inquisition into the King's Exchequer, so that the officers 

 there might collect the accruing feudal dues. Occasionally the 

 jury made an insufficient or inaccurate return and then a further 

 writ, known as the writ ad inelius inquirendum, was directed to 

 the escheator requiring him to hold a second inquest for ascertain- 

 ing the facts omitted. Sometimes this process had to be repeated 

 a second or third time. 



In the reign of Henry VIII in consequence of the alleged 

 extortions on the part of the Crown officials, and the practice 



